Quote:
Originally Posted by SMadsen
I respectfully disagree. If I present the creation account of the Flying Spaghetti Monster then there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that invalidates the truth of that account. It simply is correct.
|
Truth can't be invalidated by definition. Invalidating the correctness of your claim assumes that there is correctness to begin with. At this point this account is an unsubstantiated claim. It can not be said to be correct for lack of contrary evidence with no evidence to back it up in the affirmative. Then there are other creation accounts given in religion. Your creation account is contrary to them. They all can't be correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMadsen
Now, if we have constructed and agreed upon rules for when something can be correct and when it can be incorrect then I certainly agree with you. But that's not the issue here. You may hold the rule that there can be only one god but I can trump that by installing as many gods as I like. That doesn't make my claims more correct than yours but it certainly doesn't make your claims more correct than mine. Ergo, they are all as correct as they can be.
|
I gave you an accepted definition of correct which conforms with reality. You may say that there are multiple deities. Some religions hold to one only. Others believe that there is no god. These all can't be correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMadsen
Of course, if I attempt to walk outside the realm of my claim and argue the truth by means for which there is either actual evidence or axiomatic rules, then I'm screwed.
|
You don't have to walk outside the realm of your claim for it to be incorrect. Reality either makes it correct or not correct, belief doesn't change this.